Countrywide Parking Management ltd Appeal Denied

baart77

Hi All,

my dad received a windscreen PCN from Countrywide Parking Management ltd. (IPC member) in a residential parking. He had the permit displayed but they claimed it had not been there and provided as evidence a poor quality photos taken in the dark with only a few showing the number plate and none of them showing the PCN stuck to the window or anything that could prove the car was parked in the residential car park.

Following the guidance from the newbies forum we waited for the Notice to Keeper to arrive before appealing. The NTK arrived within the required time but gave no deadline to appeal, only said to write to appeals dept if we thought there were reasons to appeal after the 28 days deadline given in the windscreen notice.

We appealed using the templates from this forum on the 26th day from the NTK never admitting who the driver was. They responded that we had missed the deadline for appeal. We replied again asking them to reconsider and for clarification and also raised the fact they are not seeking Alternative Dispute Resolution. They responded that the case had now been referred to Trace Debt Recovery LTD and the only time available for appeal was 28 days from the windscreen notice.

This is not a scenario I have seen covered anywhere on the forum. I am just seeking clarification whether to engage into further communication with them or should I assume that we have exhausted all the options and now we just have to wait if the letter before claim comes?

Thanks in advance.

B

Redx

this has been covered thousands of times and rejection of the initial appeal is almost a certainty, no matter what the reason they give


therefore, the IPC and IAS info from the NEWBIES sticky thread applies


so yes to your latter paragraph above, that is the scenario

baart77

ok. Thank you for the clarification.

B.

Fruitcake

Your next move is to complain to your MP about this unregulated scam.

The scammers and their trade associations make up appeal deadlines that are at variance with acts of parliament because they are unregulated so just make up any rules they want.

Many IPC companies don't allow the keeper to appeal and many of those that do only allow 21 days.

There are of course no such deadlines in the PoFA 2012, and the ADR Act 2015 specifies an appeal period of not less than twelve months.

All of this should be highlighted to your dad's MP, adding the comments in red from the NEWBIES just in case they aren't familiar with the opinions of every MP across every party who has been involved with the proposed new parking bill.

baart77

Hi all,

Complained to the MP and I am currently in letters' exchange phase with BW Legal following their usual LBC. So far I have replied using templates from other similar threads. In their recent letter BW Legal claims that their client - Countrywide Parking Management ltd is a BPA member and adheres to their CoC. According to BPA website they are not members and CPM website says they are IPC. All the corespondence from CPM has got IPC logo on it. Not sure if it is relevant and if I should mention this in my response to BW Legal or complain to someone maybe?

Also when I asked them to state how long the vehicle was parked there for all they say is that it was observed at 22.43 while the photos they enclosed show a timestamp 22.41. ,Can it be challenged as not complying with POFA? There is no period of time given in the original NTK either, all it says is just 22.43. Does it make it non compliant? They say their client is going to rely on POFA to claim the money from the keeper.

Can someone advise please?

Thx,
B

Coupon-mad

Yes you can argue in defence when you get a claim, that a NTK requires a 'period of parking' then explain the discrepancies.

Is the NTK otherwise POFA-compliant with the right 8(2)f wording exactly? Look closely.

This will be the main defence:

He had the permit displayed but they claimed it had not been there and provided as evidence a poor quality photos taken in the dark with only a few showing the number plate and none of them showing the PCN stuck to the window or anything that could prove the car was parked in the residential car park.

...as well as unclear/unlit signage, and 'primacy of contract' if HE was the resident or a visitor to a resident who is a leaseholder or tenant with primacy of contract.

To understand that aspect, see the residential defence examples in the NEWBIES thread - there are more than one linked there in the 2nd post.

Re the next reply to BW Legal:

Not sure if it is relevant and if I should mention this in my response to BW Legal

Yes, mention it as an example of their lack of checks of the facts. You can use and adapt the slightly sarcastic BW Legal reply I wrote on Monday that's been used in 3 or 4 other BW Legal threads since then, this week (read a few!).

We assume you sent a SAR to the parking firm already by email, as the NEWBIES thread coaches you to do at LBC stage, to see their hand/all photos?

baart77

Thanks for a quick reply.

the NTK seems to be following the rules, time period is the only thing I have found that is missing. After the debt collectors letter, BW Legal got in touch with LBC and following the advise from other threads I asked them to send me clarification regarding the claim including all the evidence they have, which they did. I have not requested SAR from the parking company. Should I do that anyway now?

Coupon-mad

Yes - you really need to read other BW Legal threads from THIS week, copy the reply I drafted, and submit a SAR by email to the PPC, like everyone does!

baart77

Hi,

Following my response to BW Legal in which I challenged the earlier mentioned points I have now received a letter tittled "Your outstanding query" clarifying that the vehicle was parked without the permit from 22.40 to 22.43. Should I still respond and challenge the grace period? This is getting ridiculous...

Thank you.
B

Coupon-mad

Yes why not! Ask where is the evidence that the driver wasn't fetching the permit in that minute, and upload a PDF proof that it exists. Remind them that their client has photo evidence of ONE MINUTE, not 22.43pm.

baart77

Hi,

I have replied mentioning the grace period, etc. Another letter has just come through. No tittle just a response to my previous communication.

They now say "Please be advised the terms and conditions state vehicles should display a valid permit at all times. The grace period you are referring to is in relationship to making payments to park, but as this site is a permit site, your vehicle was in breach. We have enclosed the relevant evidence to show this" Evidence they have is a few dark photos only some of them showing the number plate and none of them showing where the car was parked.

and further "a letter before claim will be issued in due course should no amicable resolution be forthcoming"

Seems to me a lot of BS. Should I continue a further letter exchange or ignore and wait for a proper LBC? any advise would be appreciated.

Thx,
B